Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You didn't read the article I posted. The author's point was that many people view the urban riots of the 1960s as the "beginning of the end" of American cities. That's the common narrative. What's notably omitted from that narrative is white violence and how that also contributed to the degradation of inner cities.
Because it didn't. I did read the article. He talked about white violence, but apparently just as an attempt to make white people feel guilty for talking about the race riots. Then, he switches to the "white flight" theory; whites left and the cities collapsed without them and their money, and the riots had nothing to do with it. He uses white violence only to support the idea that it was plausible whites would be so afraid of having black neighbors that they'd abandon the cities.
One other thing, possibly relevant: At least in Newark, the riots had one other effect that Hertz doesn't mention: they caused flight of the black middle class.
We don't have a language to discuss the systemic racism that still persists.
I'm not following you entirely - but the language to discuss the racism in the system is in talking about what that racism looks like.
But then again, is 'racism' the best word to describe unequal outcomes? Doesn't that word imply at least the intention of intention of an unequal outcome?
Because it didn't. I did read the article. He talked about white violence, but apparently just as an attempt to make white people feel guilty for talking about the race riots. Then, he switches to the "white flight" theory; whites left and the cities collapsed without them and their money, and the riots had nothing to do with it. He uses white violence only to support the idea that it was plausible whites would be so afraid of having black neighbors that they'd abandon the cities.
I posted a few examples earlier in the thread but white people had been generally moving out of cities for 20 years before the riots. For that reason alone I don't believe that riots had much to do with the white, middle-class exodus but also because the riots didn't typically happen in neighborhoods that were still mostly white. Just in the remnant business districts with mostly white shop owners from when the neighborhoods were still mostly white.
People might use it as an ex post facto (and crypto-racist) excuse but it's not the reason.
Quote:
One other thing, possibly relevant: At least in Newark, the riots had one other effect that Hertz doesn't mention: they caused flight of the black middle class.
Black middle-class flight began with that group leaving black ghettoes in the 50s in search of better housing and then in the early 70s they started moving to the suburbs as well - pretty much as soon as the federal crackdown on racially-based home lending.
I'm not following you entirely - but the language to discuss the racism in the system is in talking about what that racism looks like.
But then again, is 'racism' the best word to describe unequal outcomes? Doesn't that word imply at least the intention of intention of an unequal outcome?
We tend to think of racism as something between individuals or like minded groups. Not as something that is built into policy. And directly or indirectly and leads to unequal outcomes.
For example the "war on drugs." Crack was punished more harshly than coke even though they were the same drug delivered differently. Black people did crack more often therefore punished more. Drug use is fairly equivalent across ethnic groups, but black people are a little less likely to do drugs, and get arrested for possession way more often.
I saw a story about Seattle, where the focused all of their attention to the war on drugs to a single park that was frequented most often by black people. Seattle had a pretty small black population, but somehow the vast majority of people arrested for drugs were black. The police didn't bother looking for drug sales in the white part of town.
The war in drugs also never targeted the top of the food chain, only low level dealers. If it was such a war, why not end it from the top down instead of fighting in the ground?
In the 80s an image of the black welfare queen was created as a tactic to reduce welfare money and social programs. Meanwhile only a tiny percentage of welfare users fit that stereotype (and most welfare beneficiaries were white).
All of these "little" thing I most how we see and treat black men and women today, but they wouldn't be called racism.
We tend to think of racism as something between individuals or like minded groups. Not as something that is built into policy. And directly or indirectly and leads to unequal outcomes.
I know what it means . . . i just wasn't sure where you were going with it and how it related to my previous post. It doesn't matter, though. We're mostly saying the same thing.
My point is, if we want to fix these unequal outcomes then we need to know why they're unequal in the first place. Is it because some policies are still racist? or is it because of the lingering legacy of past racist policies, ie, lingering black poverty puts an unequal portion of black people into contact with police, etc?
Quote:
I saw a story about Seattle, where the focused all of their attention to the war on drugs to a single park that was frequented most often by black people. Seattle had a pretty small black population, but somehow the vast majority of people arrested for drugs were black. The police didn't bother looking for drug sales in the white part of town.
Personally I think the drug war is stupid, the DEA funds itself through asset forfeiture (ie, through drug money), and I know full well that white people, clearly by the numbers but also as a % do far more drugs than black people.
But then I also come from a neighborhood with a drug market that I wouldn't exactly call open air but then it's not exactly a secret to anyone either. It's run by a group of black kids. The cops know what they're doing but the kids are smart(ish) so the cops can't pin the drugs on them. A lot of this happens on my corner and I can hear the cops patting them down. Pat downs for weapons usually, not drugs. In the 8 years that i've been in my house there have been 7 shootings on my block, 2 of them in broad daylight, 5 of them related to the kids selling drugs and the cops say that the kids have been involved in shootings elsewhere in South Philly. Anyway, when the cops come around the kids always play the race card immediately. I've actually had conversations with the kids about why the cops bother them as I've known white kids who have been involved in similar stuff and I told them "you know why the cops don't bother the white kids selling drugs? because they don't stand out on the corner all day and they don't shoot up the neighborhood." I realize that it has a lot to do with who the clientele is and the kind of drugs being sold but that sort of thing isn't really an example of systemic racism. When you're doing triage policing you're trying to stop the bleeding and dying first.
So my long winded anecdote is a question of sorts - did the cops in Seattle go after the park because it was frequented mostly by black people or because it had a visible drug problem that was easily prosecuted and/or there was violence associated with the drug trade there?
For me where this comes back to unequal outcomes is in food, shelter and education and if you want to get really sociological about it then Maslow's Hierarchy. That's where policy needs to change. The drug trade thrives in poor communities. In inner city poor black neighborhoods that's crack, weed, wet, etc. In inner city white neighborhoods it's weed, meth, heroin (and not much different in rural areas either). The reason it thrives in black communities is the same reason it thrives in in white ones - desperation. If people have no hope and few alternatives that's what happens.
Quote:
In the 80s an image of the black welfare queen was created as a tactic to reduce welfare money and social programs. Meanwhile only a tiny percentage of welfare users fit that stereotype (and most welfare beneficiaries were white).
Of course, and this was the right wing, Reaganite/Gingrich tactic of nasty, racist politics and we saw the same tactics trotted out again with Obama.
That's also kind of my point here, the stereotype of the black welfare queen is racist but so is the stereotype of the mouth-breathing, fat white guy who votes racist.
Quote:
All of these "little" thing I most how we see and treat black men and women today, but they wouldn't be called racism.
I know what it means . . . i just wasn't sure where you were going with it and how it related to my previous post. It doesn't matter, though. We're mostly saying the same thing.
My point is, if we want to fix these unequal outcomes then we need to know why they're unequal in the first place. Is it because some policies are still racist? or is it because of the lingering legacy of past racist policies, ie, lingering black poverty puts an unequal portion of black people into contact with police, etc?
Personally I think the drug war is stupid, the DEA funds itself through asset forfeiture (ie, through drug money), and I know full well that white people, clearly by the numbers but also as a % do far more drugs than black people.
But then I also come from a neighborhood with a drug market that I wouldn't exactly call open air but then it's not exactly a secret to anyone either. It's run by a group of black kids. The cops know what they're doing but the kids are smart(ish) so the cops can't pin the drugs on them. A lot of this happens on my corner and I can hear the cops patting them down. Pat downs for weapons usually, not drugs. In the 8 years that i've been in my house there have been 7 shootings on my block, 2 of them in broad daylight, 5 of them related to the kids selling drugs and the cops say that the kids have been involved in shootings elsewhere in South Philly. Anyway, when the cops come around the kids always play the race card immediately. I've actually had conversations with the kids about why the cops bother them as I've known white kids who have been involved in similar stuff and I told them "you know why the cops don't bother the white kids selling drugs? because they don't stand out on the corner all day and they don't shoot up the neighborhood." I realize that it has a lot to do with who the clientele is and the kind of drugs being sold but that sort of thing isn't really an example of systemic racism. When you're doing triage policing you're trying to stop the bleeding and dying first.
So my long winded anecdote is a question of sorts - did the cops in Seattle go after the park because it was frequented mostly by black people or because it had a visible drug problem that was easily prosecuted and/or there was violence associated with the drug trade there?
For me where this comes back to unequal outcomes is in food, shelter and education and if you want to get really sociological about it then Maslow's Hierarchy. That's where policy needs to change. The drug trade thrives in poor communities. In inner city poor black neighborhoods that's crack, weed, wet, etc. In inner city white neighborhoods it's weed, meth, heroin (and not much different in rural areas either). The reason it thrives in black communities is the same reason it thrives in in white ones - desperation. If people have no hope and few alternatives that's what happens.
Of course, and this was the right wing, Reaganite/Gingrich tactic of nasty, racist politics and we saw the same tactics trotted out again with Obama.
That's also kind of my point here, the stereotype of the black welfare queen is racist but so is the stereotype of the mouth-breathing, fat white guy who votes racist.
sorry, i couldn't make that out.
I don't think the fat racist white guy stereotype is super common, but if it is it doesn't impact life outcomes for someone who meets the profile.
The black welfare queen on the other hand is always portrayed by someone who looks a lot like me. If I had a dollar for every time someone was surprised I went to college, have parents who went to college or didn't have kids in high school, I'd have a down payment on a condo by now. And those are just the overt people. Who knows about the ones who aren't so obvious and maybe were just rude or did something else when encountering me.
I hate autocorrect in my iPad!!!! It changes weird things. Anyway my intent was that we have a generations of these images of black people that shape our current policies and perceptions, but many are not necessarily overtly racist. I had a Facebook convo yesterday about the new study where black preschoolers are suspended 3x more than their white peers. And very often for subjective stuff like talking back. A friend (a High school teacher) commented this happens at her school often, and she suspects the administrator is racist. But the idea that black kids talk back fits into our narrative of "bad black kids." But I am certain Pul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh and Chris Christie did the same things as. It was spun as confidence and leadership ability or standing your ground.
I don't think the fat racist white guy stereotype is super common, but if it is it doesn't impact life outcomes for someone who meets the profile.
The black welfare queen on the other hand is always portrayed by someone who looks a lot like me. If I had a dollar for every time someone was surprised I went to college, have parents who went to college or didn't have kids in high school, I'd have a down payment on a condo by now. And those are just the overt people. Who knows about the ones who aren't so obvious and maybe were just rude or did something else when encountering me.
I hate autocorrect in my iPad!!!! It changes weird things. Anyway my intent was that we have a generations of these images of black people that shape our current policies and perceptions, but many are not necessarily overtly racist. I had a Facebook convo yesterday about the new study where black preschoolers are suspended 3x more than their white peers. And very often for subjective stuff like talking back. A friend (a High school teacher) commented this happens at her school often, and she suspects the administrator is racist. But the idea that black kids talk back fits into our narrative of "bad black kids." But I am certain Pul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh and Chris Christie did the same things as. It was spun as confidence and leadership ability or standing your ground.
OK, you hooked me! I was going to get off CD and do something useful, e.g. fill the dishwasher and wrap my daughter's birthday presents. But you have to bring up auto-correct! On Thursday, when Pitt was playing the U of CO in basketball, I said (on Facebook to the Pitt alumni board) that i had mixed feelings b/c my kids went to CU. I thought it was OK and posted it, only to find out it autocorrected to say my kids went to CUBA! Even if they had gone there, what difference would that make?
Anyway, about the pre-school suspension thing. I heard that story on NPR and was shocked. It said there was no apparent reason for these suspensions. Somewhere else I read that the "suspensions" might be students getting dropped b/c of financial reasons. (Most pre-schools are private pay.) I dunno. It's weird, that's for sure.
I don't think the fat racist white guy stereotype is super common, but if it is it doesn't impact life outcomes for someone who meets the profile.
I think the stereotype is ubiquitous. It was talked about for months after the last election. The people do exist after all but I think the stereotype is far more prevalent than their actual numbers. Just say "Tea Party" and I'm pretty sure that's the image that immediately comes to mind for a lot of people.
If you're white and are suspected of having those kind of politics doors will close for you in a hurry . . . depending on where you live and what line of work you're in. I'm not saying it's equal to the welfare queen stereotype but it exists - my point in bringing it up was just to point out the irony of "black people did this? Oh yeah? well white people did this!" Assigning blame for a political event (to include riots) or social problem to an entire race of people, across generations is racist at its very essence.
Quote:
The black welfare queen on the other hand is always portrayed by someone who looks a lot like me. If I had a dollar for every time someone was surprised I went to college, have parents who went to college or didn't have kids in high school, I'd have a down payment on a condo by now. And those are just the overt people. Who knows about the ones who aren't so obvious and maybe were just rude or did something else when encountering me.
Does this come from black people? white people?
Quote:
I hate autocorrect in my iPad!!!! It changes weird things. Anyway my intent was that we have a generations of these images of black people that shape our current policies and perceptions, but many are not necessarily overtly racist. I had a Facebook convo yesterday about the new study where black preschoolers are suspended 3x more than their white peers. And very often for subjective stuff like talking back. A friend (a High school teacher) commented this happens at her school often, and she suspects the administrator is racist. But the idea that black kids talk back fits into our narrative of "bad black kids."
Good point. I saw that story as well . . . but I had read this one earlier http://nyti.ms/1fHBkAC and my thought on the article on the suspensions was, since the data doesn't show what the suspensions were for or any other potential reason for the disparity then there are only questions - to what extent is this a reflection of racist teachers/admins and to what extent is this a reflection of a lot of kids with a crappy home life? Is there an SES correlation?
But like I said before, if this is the sort of thing we want to change then we need to know a lot more. My guess is that there will be a strong link to a good home life (with a further strong link to SES) and weaker link (but still present) to racist teachers/admins. We can change the policy almost immediately (and also start doing things like in the Times article I linked to) which will make it much easier to spot the people who are singling out black kids.
Quote:
But I am certain Pul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh and Chris Christie did the same things as. It was spun as confidence and leadership ability or standing your ground.
Limbaugh, probably but for Christie and Ryan most evidence points to the contrary. When you're being groomed for leadership positions the people doing the grooming don't bother with people who won't submit to their authority. I would guess that's what separates them from a talk-radio host. (*not an endorsement of any of them!)
I think the stereotype is ubiquitous. It was talked about for months after the last election. The people do exist after all but I think the stereotype is far more prevalent than their actual numbers. Just say "Tea Party" and I'm pretty sure that's the image that immediately comes to mind for a lot of people.
If you're white and are suspected of having those kind of politics doors will close for you in a hurry . . . depending on where you live and what line of work you're in. I'm not saying it's equal to the welfare queen stereotype but it exists - my point in bringing it up was just to point out the irony of "black people did this? Oh yeah? well white people did this!" Assigning blame for a political event (to include riots) or social problem to an entire race of people, across generations is racist at its very essence.
It really comes down to a general problem with US. People of color and other minorities are expected to be poster children for their groups, we aren't individuals. Generally white people are given the benefit if being individuals. One rapist or racist white guy isn't doing that because of his inherent nature. He's just a bad guy. But one black woman in welfare represents all if us, everyone else is an "exception."
Quote:
Does this come from black people? white people?
Mostly white people, sometimes non black minorities. Older Asian people, typically an immigrant. If African immigrants/first gen are into those stereotypes they have decided to call me one of your own. I.E are you Nigerian?
Quote:
Good point. I saw that story as well . . . but I had read this one earlier http://nyti.ms/1fHBkAC and my thought on the article on the suspensions was, since the data doesn't show what the suspensions were for or any other potential reason for the disparity then there are only questions - to what extent is this a reflection of racist teachers/admins and to what extent is this a reflection of a lot of kids with a crappy home life? Is there an SES correlation?
But like I said before, if this is the sort of thing we want to change then we need to know a lot more. My guess is that there will be a strong link to a good home life (with a further strong link to SES) and weaker link (but still present) to racist teachers/admins. We can change the policy almost immediately (and also start doing things like in the Times article I linked to) which will make it much easier to spot the people who are singling out black kids.
I think the bias has a much larger role than SES. We have spent generations portraying black people as violent and prone to criminal behavior.
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,522 posts, read 2,244,620 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
anecdotal - adjective 1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. "while there was much anecdotal evidence there was little hard fact" synonyms: informal, unreliable, based on hearsay;
Tactless? Like volunteering your salary to strangers? Or name calling?
Census data is always available at census.gov
You can also use socialexplorer.com which will map the data for you (although some of it is behind a paywall).
I have no idea what you're arguing here but I trust that you realize that making the boundaries smaller is only going to make the numerical shift even more dramatic.
Not sure what that has to do with anything here but OK.
You can argue about the ACS and the 2012 income numbers, fair enough, I can use the 2010 numbers instead but it's not really going to change the outcome. On the other hand you can't argue about the decennial census - it's not an estimate - it's a count.
It doesn't matter where you the draw the boundaries . . . you claimed that wealthy black families have always lived in Harlem. And that's true. In 2000 there were around 2500 of those households.
But then you claimed that new retail popped up because white people moved in with the subtext I'm guessing something along the lines of "retailers don't like black people with money" and then I showed you, with census data, a 300% increase in middle class and wealthy households between 2000 and 2012 as an explanation for why there's a lot of new retail there.
So, I already provided you with factual data and I told you where you can find it yourself. If my numbers are wrong you have the floor.
The floor was taken, your argument dispelled, and floor returned to you. You so graciously agreed that the numbers you presented were most likely skewed (which was the point of my post from actual "census" statistics; the true basis of urban planning/development). No hard feelings here chief. My statements are not anecdotal, but true representations. Just the fact that you stated that the gentrification bug was alive and well above 134th street proves my point......but I digress. While I do find everyone's personal OPINION interesting, I would feel less that genuine letting what I call at best "Fuzzy Logic" rather than truthfully factual representation. My describing to you the make up of Harlem was a true representation and has everything to do with the convo; it dispels the skewed numbers you set forth as factual. But, carry on....the thread is an interesting one. And you still refuse to agree that no matter the delivery or deliverer, Spike's message points were concise and to the heart of the issue....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On Thursday, when Pitt was playing the U of CO in basketball, I said (on Facebook to the Pitt alumni board) that i had mixed feelings b/c my kids went to CU. I thought it was OK and posted it, only to find out it autocorrected to say my kids went to CUBA! Even if they had gone there, what difference would that make?
Does this come from black people? white people? 
